AFL"s Illicit Drug Policy

[linuscambridge]

I think many of you are missing the point and spending too much time arguing in favour of a no brainer. There are thousands of work places where drug testing is mandatory in the work place and it's a sackable offence if you get caught. The company my wife works at has a zero alcohol policy, you can get breath tested and sacked straight away if you have a drink at lunch time.

However, my wife's company cannot follow her home on the weekend, or front up in the middle of her holiday and demand a urine sample. This is where the line is drawn. They have every right to check an employee for drugs that may effect their performance and safety in the workplace. They have no business in what we may do in our holidays.

And I don't buy the role model rubbish. One Direction are role models. The entire cast of neighbours are role models. I don't see the music producers or TV companies turning up at the Logies or the Aria's chasing the stars with a test tube. Good forbid, there would be a few strikes handed out there!

 

[AngryAnt]

Celebrities not allowed to do drugs? Defeats the purpose of being a celebrity really

 

[Ian4]

Celebrities not allowed to do drugs? Defeats the purpose of being a celebrity really

:hihi

 

[tigerlove]

exactly... you work with addicts. the vast majority of people who take drugs are not addicts and live normal lives.

You have no idea Ian, that's clear.

Edit: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/tony-abbott-announces-war-on-drug-ice/6376492

A bit of reality, ice is like no other drug before it.

 

[Tigers of Old]

Like most debates around drugs the ideas that the Hun/Current Affair and the like promote of "take ice, become a berserker or zombie and then die" is a whole lot of sh!t.

Ice is a dangerous, dangerous drug but don't believe everything you read.

You make sense Ant but is this just like any other drug or is it another entity entirely?
I must admit to not knowing enough about the drug but as a father I find it quite unsettling knowing that this stuff is out there.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I think many of you are missing the point and spending too much time arguing in favour of a no brainer. There are thousands of work places where drug testing is mandatory in the work place and it's a sackable offence if you get caught. The company my wife works at has a zero alcohol policy, you can get breath tested and sacked straight away if you have a drink at lunch time.

However, my wife's company cannot follow her home on the weekend, or front up in the middle of her holiday and demand a urine sample. This is where the line is drawn. They have every right to check an employee for drugs that may effect their performance and safety in the workplace. They have no business in what we may do in our holidays.

And I don't buy the role model rubbish. One Direction are role models. The entire cast of neighbours are role models. I don't see the music producers or TV companies turning up at the Logies or the Aria's chasing the stars with a test tube. Good forbid, tthere would be a few strikes handed out there!

:clap :clap

Knocking it out of the park on this issue Linus! I love your workplace analogy. I've never accepted the role model idea either. Yes "The AFL" uses the players images as a marketing tool but the players are selected and paid on ability not marketability. If Zayn (ex-One Direction) turned up tomorrow you might see him used in advertising by a club but you won't see him line up on the back of the square on Saturday afternoon. Players are paid to play.

On the illicit drug policy I tend to agree with those questioning it from a civil liberties perspective. If a club wants to influence its players out of season then have a state of the art education policy. If you discover a player has become dependant and it is affecting his career then help him. If you are a civic minded enough club and his career is not affected but you suspect his relationships are then by all means try to help.

The holier than thou crowd going on about "illicit" drugs (what does that mean?) can dismount from their perch. The current categories for drugs are mostly historical/political not chemical/scientific. If you want to find out why people are killing themselves or others look at the people not the substance.

As an aside based on previous posting I would suggest Ian4 is one of the best informed posters on this topic.

 

[Mac]

Eh? “illicit” drugs means the drugs are illegal. Forbidden. You know….against the law.
Sorry to be glib...I appreciate that wasn't the thrust of your point, but as new drugs come into the market, do you propose we ditch the concept of them being viewed as potentially harmful just because they haven’t been historically listed and recognised yet?
There has to be some sort of framework to allow for measurability of law that is based on the well being of it's people.

And with regard to looking at the people, not the substance….this is a hopelessly narrow and incorrect way of viewing this issue. Sure, looking at people and their motivations is always a factor. Yeah, some people just do bad things. But to ignore drugs as a massive factor in influencing people doing bad things is unbelievably naïve. You couldn’t be more wrong quite frankly.

Yes, the players are paid to play. But this is just one basic element. Being selected to play in the AFL is a lot more complex than just that and the players know it (or learn it quickly enough). The clubs now interview them on their characters and background for example. Players are taught how to present themselves in the media. Why bother if their image is unimportant? Their image is an integrated part of their involvement in the AFL. The AFL is not just 'playing footy'.

The AFL and the managers of One Direction both sell images. Slightly different images, but the product still has to meet expectations. Rock stars, boy bands, etc vs AFL players will get different good and bad press for different sets of behaviours. You’re going to get different levels of acceptance if say Lemme Kilmister downs a bottle of Jack and throws up in a taxi compared with if Harry Styles did it. Motorhead ain’t gonna lose fans for that, but One D might….and their managers would act on it.

One Direction, the cast of Neighbours and the AFL players all come under different levels of scrutiny from different angles and is part of the territory and relative compensations for each. Not everyone is cut out for various roles in societies, but various roles have their own requirements good and bad.

The image of the players that the AFL sells is of one of role models. The illicit drug policy is just a part of this. Gone is tolerance of brawls, racial vilification and other aspects of old world football for better or for worse. And part of being an AFL player….to get signed up for the glory and the dollars….to be in that hard to break into, elite group….is that you toe the line of the of the expected standards. And if the AFL say to be part of this exclusive arena, one of the burdens you must bear even if you’re not ‘at work’ is that you are subject to drug testing…then that’s what the players sign up for. It’s not a regular work place in some respects, but even then….if ‘regular’ employers paid you big dollars and had the resources to check on you because it was part of their big picture, then you would be subject to it too.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that I'm hearing any arguments that players should not be tested for performance enhancing drugs in their private time. If they’re cheating the rules of playing the sport clean, then they should be busted for it, whether they’re on holiday or not. Why is it such a stretch to test them for cheating the laws of the land? Why should the AFL not have the ability to put this requirement on their product?

Another work analogy…Some people must be contactable by phone even if they are on holidays because of security, specific knowledge, sole approval status, medical instruction, etc, etc.
Don’t like being on call on your holidays? Then you might not be able to meet the requirements of that job.

 

[linuscambridge]

Eh? “illicit” drugs means the drugs are illegal. Forbidden. You know….against the law.
Sorry to be glib...I appreciate that wasn't the thrust of your point, but as new drugs come into the market, do you propose we ditch the concept of them being viewed as potentially harmful just because they haven’t been historically listed and recognised yet?
There has to be some sort of framework to allow for measurability of law that is based on the well being of it's people.

And with regard to looking at the people, not the substance….this is a hopelessly narrow and incorrect way of viewing this issue. Sure, looking at people and their motivations is always a factor. Yeah, some people just do bad things. But to ignore drugs as a massive factor in influencing people doing bad things is unbelievably naïve. You couldn’t be more wrong quite frankly.

Yes, the players are paid to play. But this is just one basic element. Being selected to play in the AFL is a lot more complex than just that and the players know it (or learn it quickly enough). The clubs now interview them on their characters and background for example. Players are taught how to present themselves in the media. Why bother if their image is unimportant? Their image is an integrated part of their involvement in the AFL. The AFL is not just 'playing footy'.

The AFL and the managers of One Direction both sell images. Slightly different images, but the product still has to meet expectations. Rock stars, boy bands, etc vs AFL players will get different good and bad press for different sets of behaviours. You’re going to get different levels of acceptance if say Lemme Kilmister downs a bottle of Jack and throws up in a taxi compared with if Harry Styles did it. Motorhead ain’t gonna lose fans for that, but One D might….and their managers would act on it.

One Direction, the cast of Neighbours and the AFL players all come under different levels of scrutiny from different angles and is part of the territory and relative compensations for each. Not everyone is cut out for various roles in societies, but various roles have their own requirements good and bad.

The image of the players that the AFL sells is of one of role models. The illicit drug policy is just a part of this. Gone is tolerance of brawls, racial vilification and other aspects of old world football for better or for worse. And part of being an AFL player….to get signed up for the glory and the dollars….to be in that hard to break into, elite group….is that you toe the line of the of the expected standards. And if the AFL say to be part of this exclusive arena, one of the burdens you must bear even if you’re not ‘at work’ is that you are subject to drug testing…then that’s what the players sign up for. It’s not a regular work place in some respects, but even then….if ‘regular’ employers paid you big dollars and had the resources to check on you because it was part of their big picture, then you would be subject to it too.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think that I'm hearing any arguments that players should not be tested for performance enhancing drugs in their private time. If they’re cheating the rules of playing the sport clean, then they should be busted for it, whether they’re on holiday or not. Why is it such a stretch to test them for cheating the laws of the land? Why should the AFL not have the ability to put this requirement on their product?

Another work analogy…Some people must be contactable by phone even if they are on holidays because of security, specific knowledge, sole approval status, medical instruction, etc, etc.
Don’t like being on call on your holidays? Then you might not be able to meet the requirements of that job.

Ok, it seems we disagree on some points and that is fine. But please answer me this, why just illicit drugs? Why choose just this part of the penal code as the one area the AFL is attempting to do the job of law enforcement? Why not drink driving? Why not domestic violence? Why not jay walking?

 

[lamb22]

If I was a football club spending oodles of dollars monitoring a professional footballers health, fitness and training I'd sure want to know if they were doing drugs.

Want to do drugs? Do it in the bush leagues.

What about sky diving? If I was a football club spending oodles of dollars monitoring a professional footballers health, fitness and training I'd sure want to know if they were going skydiving.

Dangerous activity which affects your investment.

 

[lamb22]

Other activities footballers should be banned from doing:

Skiing;
parasailing;
Sex in hotels with loose light fittings;
Visiting Nauru or Manus Island;
Wearing thongs (either variety)
tumbling cows;
water recovery at Port Melbourne;
cycling;
driving;
inhaling second hand smoke;
eating halopena chilliies;
wearing tight fitting jeans.

Gotta protect that Investment Oldie!!

 

[Tigers of Old]

Gotta protect that Investment Oldie!!

Skydiving isn't the same as taking drugs but if you think so knock yourself out.

At the end of the day i reckon the players will overwhelmingly vote to have this policy tightened.
The ones that object will be the ones that have something to hide.

 

[Baloo]

I'm not sure any of those are illegal, except maybe cow tipping.

 

[Mac]

Ok, it seems we disagree on some points and that is fine. But please answer me this, why just illicit drugs? Why choose just this part of the penal code as the one area the AFL is attempting to do the job of law enforcement? Why not drink driving? Why not domestic violence? Why not jay walking?

Fair enough question.

There maybe something to it being flavour of the month, I dunno. But I'm not sure it's that's simple either.

There's a few things here I guess.

1. illicit drug use and the performance enhancing drug use have grey boundaries and can sometimes go hand in hand, so they need to cover that.
2. the sample taking is something that can be done in similar ways at similar times. It's probably a lot easier sampling, testing and measuring this under the 'drug' umbrella and using similar resources. And what if they were just testing for performance drugs and it's suspected illicit drugs could be at play?...do they ignore this. Probably easier from a duty of care aspect to widen the umbrella to cover both (otherwise, what gets included and what gets left out?).
3. It wouldn't be feasible for the AFL to 'police' those other aspects. The AFL can access drug testing resources. But booze buses? Street patrols? Domestic violence is whole other area of training again. Hugely complicated for the AFL to enter this. And it's not like the AFL actively ignore these other areas. If a player is up on rape charges, he may be temporarily suspended, or have other restrictions placed on him. If sentenced...he may then be fined, banned, whatever. Drink driving charges had ramifications of sponsorship from the TAC for Richmond and Collingwood.

Illicit drugs also have the connection to underworld organised crime. It's a root cause of many other issues (although probably not jay walking, or parking in a residential zone). The AFL should want to keep this at bay (and one reason I'm so dark on the Essendon saga and why they should have been slammed....I think the 'darkest day in sport' thing wasn't just about peptides)

Those other issues may even be something the AFL move around and try to do more within the realm of what they can do legally and resource wise. Eg, It wouldn't surprise me if they banned Mad Mondays in the not too distant future. If they keep getting players jumping off roofs in Vegas, or dwarves being set alight, it will happen.

I get the civil liberties thing...and how much Big Brother to do we need? But illicit drugs being a flavour of the month is ok with me because it has such potential to be a massive problem. I'm not happy with all things the AFL do, but good on them for trying to be part of the solution here.

And yeah, I accept I'm probably a bit of a wowser compared to some...I'd be tougher on the gambling side of things too, as it also ruins lives and has organised crime connections.


(and yes Lamb, the players are actually not allowed to participate in some riskier activities if it may injure them....goes with the territory of playing AFL...they wont' get compo if they do their knee water skiing)

 

[Carter]

My ideal scenario is a fantasy.

Zero tolerance on illicit drugs, domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

The three cancers in the lives of adrenalized, fit young men.

But the AFL of course won't do that.

And for those who don't buy the whole role model thing?

Ask the thousands of kids who cherish Chris Judd's autograph and can reel off his average possessions per game for the last decade.

 

[AngryAnt]

You make sense Ant but is this just like any other drug or is it another entity entirely?
I must admit to not knowing enough about the drug but as a father I find it quite unsettling knowing that this stuff is out there.

Bring your kids up right, that's all you can do ToO. And be assured that things aren't as bad as the mass media makes out.

 

[tigersnake]

If I was a football club spending oodles of dollars monitoring a professional footballers health, fitness and training I'd sure want to know if they were doing drugs.

Want to do drugs? Do it in the bush leagues.

Thats it. Interesting dabate. I see merit on both sides, but the bottom line is, right or wrong, if you want to buy-in to the bright lights, money and accolades of big league footy, you are buying in to the whole package. The healthy, fit, skillful image as well as the game itself is what sells the products. Selling the products is what generates the big money.

Linus's posts on role models are thought provoking though. The players are role models whether they or anyone like it or not. Thats not up for debate AFAIC, But why do all role models have to be squeaky-clean Ken-dolls? It doesn't represent real life, we know it, kids know it. Some of my favourite role models as a kid were not squeaky clean: the uncle with the overflowing car ashtray and multiple girlfriends who gave us a beer at family gatherings, the grade 5 teacher who snuck in late, drove a monaro and could roost a 50m torp, the year 9 english teacher who wore tight skirts and winked at me, Ozzie Osbourne, Debbie Harry (actually those last 2 are bad examples, because rock and roll role models have different rules, but you get the picture.

 

[AngryAnt]

My ideal scenario is a fantasy.

Zero tolerance on illicit drugs, domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

The three cancers in the lives of adrenalized, fit young men.

But the AFL of course won't do that.

And for those who don't buy the whole role model thing?

Ask the thousands of kids who cherish Chris Judd's autograph and can reel off his average possessions per game for the last decade.

And you reckon that their idolisation of Juddy from ages 7-14 will prevent them from having a toke on a joint when they turn 16 and go to a party?

Having a footballer as a "role model" means squat when it comes to living in the real world.

 

[AngryAnt]

Linus's posts on role models are thought provoking though. The players are role models whether they or anyone like it or not. Thats not up for debate AFAIC, But why do all role models have to be squeaky-clean Ken-dolls? It doesn't represent real life, we know it, kids know it. Some of my favourite role models as a kid were not squeaky clean: the uncle with the overflowing car ashtray and multiple girlfriends who gave us a beer at family gatherings, the grade 5 teacher who snuck in late, drove a monaro and could roost a 50m torp, the year 9 english teacher who wore tight skirts and winked at me, Ozzie Osbourne, Debbie Harry (actually those last 2 are bad examples, because rock and roll role models have different rules, but you get the picture.

Amen brother

 

[tigersnake]

Further to my previous post, my nephew loves Dusty (as do I). He got a Dusty haircut for his u16 finals last year, tried to get the whole team to follow him to intimidate the opposition but their parents got a bit precious about their boys locks, anyway he knows Dusty might not be a pefect person. He understands that, its part of the appeal, but by no means does that mean he'll do whatever Dusty does.

 

[ninjahaha]

My ideal scenario is a fantasy.

Zero tolerance on illicit drugs, domestic violence and alcohol abuse.

The three cancers in the lives of adrenalized, fit young men.

But the AFL of course won't do that.

And for those who don't buy the whole role model thing?

Ask the thousands of kids who cherish Chris Judd's autograph and can reel off his average possessions per game for the last decade.

Real shame they don't apply this to commentators!